Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League is up and ready for sign-ups!

[Robert Olesen]

I don't undserstand why the CAL is limited to Combined Arms games (apart from the name, which is really makes it an arbitrary decision). I don't see how other force types, with the exception of unrestricted, could be gamey as long as the players agree to the choice.

This must have been discussed while the CAL was being formed. Perhaps someone can give me a qualified reason for this choice :confused:

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

I don't undserstand why the CAL is limited to Combined Arms games (apart from the name, which is really makes it an arbitrary decision). I don't see how other force types, with the exception of unrestricted, could be gamey as long as the players agree to the choice.

This must have been discussed while the CAL was being formed. Perhaps someone can give me a qualified reason for this choice :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I understand it, the theory behind CAL was to form a ladder that was based on historical OOB's and prevent gamey cherry picking force selection that lead to the use of the "system" on the TH ladder that included picking the very finest hevy tanks and the very best infantry.

Combined Arms was the choice to make the ladder a place for competion between people who wanted to contend with others that favoured "mostly" historical combined arms forces.

Does that help?

Abbott might be able to answer the question a little better?

-tom w

[Robert Olesen]

Well, yes, it helps. It is a choice and it is a help to know the reason for it. But why not allow pure infantry games? Perhaps that type is seldomly used?

[Stoffel]

I might be wrong but it was a common fact that the germans had independent tiger battallions.

They used these battallions as firebrigades and often they were used in counterattacks.

So no tigers would be a bit odd.

And I think that in december 1944/january 45 the chances were very high you would find kingtigers.

I don't use the heavies anyway and the best way to avoid this if you want is to take the good weather type(rain)I can agree with the flakvehicles to be off game but what about allied aircraft?

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

I don't undserstand why the CAL is limited to Combined Arms games (apart from the name, which is really makes it an arbitrary decision). I don't see how other force types, with the exception of unrestricted, could be gamey as long as the players agree to the choice.

This must have been discussed while the CAL was being formed. Perhaps someone can give me a qualified reason for this choice :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

another Reply...

Abbott has been configuring and leading the set up and design of the CAL so we should ask him, but, IMHO it would seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the CAL that Infantry only battles and Mechanized battles (Same as the Recon Rule here, really ) should be considered? Lets see what Abbott says.

ok?

-tom w

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think that TH:CAL can be about banning specific single units for gamey tactics. That is a can of worms that 20 or more players cannot agree on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They may not agree ... yet. However, if people insist on keeping highly cost effective units around, I shall have to show them the error of their ways.

When I play Allies, I will insist on limits on my opponent. No VGs and no Sd7/2. When I play Germans, if I ask my opponent about limits on Germans and he rejects them, he is gonna find himself facing VGs and 37mm death, until everyone has a chance to feel violated and press for a rule change.

In that sense it is no different than current CM. I never see VGs in any of my games.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It is an entirely different issue to limit all units like in the Fionn rules or to shape the forces so that all forces are more equal from start...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... it is not entirely different. In fact I would say it is the same thing. In both cases we are monkeying with the units people are allowed to use, in order to get a fairer game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

For the SdKfz 7/2 see the thread I recently started, it answers all the questions. And yes, you can kill it, just don't approach it like you would approach a tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not whether or not you can kill it. It is about, is it a great bargain, highly effective for the price you pay for it?

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

Well, yes, it helps. It is a choice and it is a help to know the reason for it. But why not allow pure infantry games? Perhaps that type is seldomly used?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually CAL was named after its creation.

I have never seen a pure infantry battle played nor asked for as a ladder match. That does not mean the option should not exist however. If folks would like to work up an idea for this by all means send it along

abbott@tournamenthouse.com

[Redwolf]

Wreck, I don't really disagree with you and you do exactly what I think is right: you tell your potential opponents which units or tactics you don't like him to take. If you can't agree, there are plenty of other players to play.

I think that the Fionn rules are different from these single-units exclusions because they make the battle as a whole different. Whereas single-unit exclusions are meant to form the same kind of battle, but prevent it from becoming bad. Also, the Fionn rules are too many to agree on for each individual battle, so it is good to have then as a whole in the rules, even when that part is optional.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Jeff Heidman]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression of the intent behind the CAL ladder is not so much to enforce some set of rules, but rather to set a background for what kind of play is expected by those who wish to play on that ladder.

In other words, I would have no problem with playing a CAL game where we pitched Fionns rules, but I would expect that my opponent would expect and desire a "historical" force match up without the cherry picking that can be found on almost any other board.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

I would be interested in coming up wiht some way to address an issue I ahve with CM as it relates to the availability of German infantry.

I know that the German variability in infantry types compared to the Allies is historic, but it still makes for an unfair advantage to the German player. Quite simply, he has a vastly superior ability to mix up his force selection and keep his opponent guessing.

Conversely, he knows pretty much what to expect from the Allies infantry. There is not a lot of tactical flexibility in Allied infantry options, and this gives the German player a smaller potential problem set to solve.

In "real life" this advantage did not exist, simply because at the tactical level the commanders did not have the ability to choose their forces. However, at the strategic level, the commanders had to deal with rather considerable problems associated with all these different units, and keeping them supplied and integrated in some form or fashion.

In CM, the German player gets the very best of both worlds. As a tactical commander, he gets to pick and choose his units to suit the terrain and mission, but at the same time does not have to deal with any of the associated difficulties. The American commander gets the worst of both worlds. He does not get the tactical flexibility the German commander enjoys, and at the same time enjoys none of the strategic benefits of a consistent force.

Solutions: No good ideas. Possible decrease the cst of Allied Infantry by a small amount to refelect the lower utility inherent in their lack of flexibility?

What I would really like to see is a greater variety of Allied infantry. Not *strictly* historic, but not totally unhistoric either. The difference between TO&E for a given rifle company and what the men actually carried could often be significant.

Jeff Heidman

[Redwolf]

Jeff, the key here is probably not to think only in infantry. For the British, it is combining "interesting" units to form a powerful force, just let nobody near your rifle squads. For the U.S. it is lots of HE blast, just how to deliver it best, given the many choices of transport and then take the objective with 12-men squads.

It has been discussed to allow the Allied player mix Airborne and Army to fix the offset, however, I think it is preferrable to narrow down the attractivness of certain German forces, namely to strip Volksgrenadier from high-end tanks.

[Jeff Heidman]

Redwolf, I agree that the mixing is the best way to "solve" the problem, but it doesn't actually do so.

Yes, combined arms tactics are essential for success with Allied units, but that is also true for the Germans. The Allies do not get anything that the Germans do not also get. Their artillery is not cheaper or more plentiful. Their tanks are cheaper, but if the German player wants to take Shermans, the PzIV is of a similar price and quality.

My point is that the Germans have choices that the Allies do not, and the Allies do not really ahve anything to balance that with.

I do not think this is a huge issue by any means, nor do I think I have ever lsot a game because of it (well, actually I did once, but I hav eplayed enough games that I am not going to sweat one result).

I think that allowing the Allied player the ability to mix is one step in the right direction. Certainly limiting the two sides to a single force pool does not solve the problem, since as the German I will jsut choose Heer and still ahve a large amount of squads to pick from. Yummy yummy SturmKompanie!

I would like to see force pools designed along some historical background limiting the Axis players choices. I.E. if you want Volkstuurm, you can forget turreted tanks, etc., etc.

Jeff Heidman

[Redwolf]

Jeff,

Volkssturm doesn't get turret tank anyway, I assume you mean Volksgrenadier. As posted here, we are about to solve that problem by making Volksgrenadier its own virtual force with no high-end tanks. I have to suggest that you read the thread again carefully, it was explained.

There are plenty of allied toys that the German don't have, one thread currently runs on this forum, another one was a few weeks back. I think that under the rules that are being worked out, you will have no problems finding Allied players if you still prefer the German force mix.

And as I understand these rules are not obligatory, they are meant to be a help to come to quick agreements. Agree with your opponent on whatever else is in the meaning of the CAL and the game may count (it is, Abbott, right?), so if you like to play Allied with airborne/army mix, you will still be able to play for CAL.

[labappel]

I have joined the CAL. Not sure how it will work in the long run but gonna give it a try. I thought I would give my thougts.

1. I would like to see OOB's available from a pool of choices. Possibly done for each of the different months and point totals, maybe 10 choices for each side. Give the player a list of what they should pick and then maybe a portion of points available to customize a little. This would require some work by someone with knowledge of historical OOB's.

2. Also if mixing Airborne troops with Regular Army in the same nationality is allowed, Why would anyone take the British rifle platoon? It is the same price for more firepower and added gamma bombs.

All in all, I think the CAL will be a good thing, especially when everything gets worked out.

[Robert Olesen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott:

Actually CAL was named after its creation.

I have never seen a pure infantry battle played nor asked for as a ladder match. That does not mean the option should not exist however. If folks would like to work up an idea for this by all means send it along

abbott@tournamenthouse.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Abbott.

Hmm, how about this:

Infantry and mechanised games use effectively the Recon rule (with the obvious purchase restrictions imposed by the force setting).

This limits artillery to 81mm. I'm not sure if this is reasonable in infantry games, but I'm no expert on this.

Armor games could also be considered, subject to either the short-75, Panther-76 or Heavy Armor rule as agreed by the players.

One other question:

Why have games where the computer makes the force selection been excluded :confused:

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by labappel:

I have joined the CAL. Not sure how it will work in the long run but gonna give it a try. I thought I would give my thougts.

1. I would like to see OOB's available from a pool of choices. Possibly done for each of the different months and point totals, maybe 10 choices for each side. Give the player a list of what they should pick and then maybe a portion of points available to customize a little. This would require some work by someone with knowledge of historical OOB's.

2. Also if mixing Airborne troops with Regular Army in the same nationality is allowed, Why would anyone take the British rifle platoon? It is the same price for more firepower and added gamma bombs.

All in all, I think the CAL will be a good thing, especially when everything gets worked out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

" Also IF mixing Airborne troops with Regular Army in the same nationality is allowed, "

I believe this rule says that is NOT allowed..

"Force Type

Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”."

I'm wondering if this rule is open to interpretation. It sounds to me like this means if you pick British Airborne that ALL you get is British Airborne, no other tanks are vehicles except those that come with British airborne, same deal with the German paratroopers.

no?

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

" Also IF mixing Airborne troops with Regular Army in the same nationality is allowed, "

I believe this rule says that is NOT allowed..

"Force Type

Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”."

I'm wondering if this rule is open to interpretation. It sounds to me like this means if you pick British Airborne that ALL you get is British Airborne, no other tanks are vehicles except those that come with British airborne, same deal with the German paratroopers.

no?

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just what I mean. This is a huge advatage for the Germans, because they can choose Heer, and have more variability in what they can get than any Allied choice.

The Heer has everything from plain vanilla rifle squads to the Strom Troopers to the pure SMG units. No real limitation at all.

Jeff Heidman

[Redwolf]

The ongoing comments are not encouraging with regards to a fine-graded set of possible rules.

Next try to explain the same things:

- most rules are optional. You can play with whatever you agree on with your opponent, provided it is in the general sense of the CAL rules. The rules that are being discussed here are meant to be in the guidelines, so that people who like to limit tanks don't need to work out the details, but just say "Fioon <something>". People who would like to allow Volksgrenadier, but limit heavy tanks will not heave to exchange a list of tanks, but they point to the set in the guidelines and say "I want *that*". Nothing prevents you from playing with Airborne/Army mix if you agree with your opponents, even when the webpage ends up with the opposite solution of narrowing the omnipotent forces down.

- the German heer has more infantry choice, but in other arms the Allies have choice the Germans don't have.

- If you insist of having many infantry choices and there cannot play anything else than Germans, then TH:CAL is still good for you because the rules will cause many player to be happy with Allied forces.

I also don't see how we can limit forces so that German infantry is as inflexbile as Allied one. We could say, only Panzergrenadiere may be used with heavy tanks and the rest of German Infantry with Marders and the like, but what would you gain from that? It is certainly not a punishment to be forced to play with Panzergrenadiere.

[aka_tom_w]

ok

The CAL ladder is up and running

Abbott has posted this response

"

Abbott

Member

Member # 2872

posted 05-01-2001 03:06 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

Well, yes, it helps. It is a choice and it is a help to know the reason for it. But why not

allow pure infantry games? Perhaps that type is seldomly used?

Actually CAL was named after its creation.

I have never seen a pure infantry battle played nor asked for as a ladder match. That does not mean the

option should not exist however. If folks would like to work up an idea for this by all means send it along

abbott@tournamenthouse.com "

There are still some good questions and concerns...

I think this is one of them..

"I also don't see how we can limit forces so that German infantry is as inflexbile as Allied one. We could say, only Panzergrenadiere may be used with heavy tanks and the rest of German Infantry with Marders and the like, but what would you gain from that? It is certainly not a punishment to be forced to play with Panzergrenadiere. "

If we all try to remember that the intent and spirit of CAL is to provide a mostly balanced playing field (this will largely help newcomer to the game and newbies on the ladder so they don't get blown off the ladder play battlefield and discouraged by powergamers who use "the system") then with that in mind, maybe we can (in this thread, as a community), propose and adopt guidelines and further rule changes to CAL.

I think that we should certianly consider infantry only battles and also the selection of mechanized battles in CAL as the Mech force selection is virtually identical to the "Recon Rules".

If we keep in mind the goal of leveling the playing field in such a way that even new comers to the game who don't select forces well won't be overly disadvantaged by the force selection requirements then I think we can all proceed to agree on some additional add on rules to the CAL. I hope to disccuss all of this with Abbott.

I would like to comment on the suggestion that computer selection of forces be allowed. I have looked closely at the rules and no where does it say that you cannot use computer selection of the forces, EXCEPT that the computer chosen forces does not know or recongize Fionn's rules about the short 75, so no one can play short 75 rules and have computer selected forces. The ONLY way computer selected forces works if you choose heavy armour and then WHY would you let the computer pick for both sides in a Ladder game if you want heavy armour?

Unfortunatlely because the play and gaming is now of BOTH a historical AND competitive nature the chance the one player (the host) might cheat and select his own units and then use the comptuer selection for the other player, and that other player would never really know if it was a PBEM, means that to protect those new to the game who do not know about this trick that computer selected forces for PBEM should be banned. In TCP/IP play there is a timing factor where if the host takes too long (I'm not sure how long TOO long is but anyway..) there is the factor of time that indicates the host could be cherry picking units while the other player is asigned them by the computer. New players to the ladder might not know this.

If we consider the rules we have so far as a good foundation or starting point I hope we can add some more that will make it more balanced.

I hope to work with Abbott on some of the wording of additional rules.

First off do we all agree that the spirit and intent of the Rules for CAL is to provide a "largely level" playing field when it come down to unit selection EVEN for those new to the game so they are not unduely disadvantaged by more experienced players who REALLY know how to cherry pick forces? I thought that was the goal from the get go, AND of course to make those unit and force selections largely historical and balanced for all concerned.

Your rule suggstions and proposals are still welcome as far as I can tell.

-tom w

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[labappel]

I agree that the most important factor in this new league will be agreeing with each other ahead of time. Once both players say "yes", then it is a CAL game.

But, I would really like to see lists of choices for what can be selected on different dates, possibly "premade" OOB's. The reason is that I am not, by any means, able to pick an accurate "historical" force. I am a lover of wargames not really of history. This would allow us to play an opponent and agree on a date, then both would select a force off the list. Have a certain number of points to add a little variation. Each player would keep the selection secret until the end of the game.

Yes, this would probably take alot of work by people that know WWII. And they almost certainly will make no money. It would be alot like getting a third party to put together force selections for a battle without having to find the third party.

-Labappel

[aka_tom_w]

I have been having alot of fun lately with Mechanized battles against the AI.

Will the CAL recgonize a Mech battle?

Its like the Recon rules only there are NO tanks of any kind and with the Germans fielding the Puma and the Allies with the Greyhound and the Daimler is it a pretty even match up.

I would like to challenge another CAL player to a Mech battle Meeting engagement, 2000 points on a large map, tree cover: light, modest hills in Sept 44. unit selection can only be from the Mechanized selections which means no tanks and up to 800 points worth of vehciles, troop quality will be high, which means you can select Vet Crack or elite units. I would like to take the Allies.

The germans can field anything in their vehicle list but no tanks, same for the Allies.

Is that a CAL Ladder match?

Anyone?

(I prefer TCP/IP btw)

-tom w

[Robert Olesen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

If we consider the rules we have so far as a good foundation or starting point I hope we can add some more that will make it more balanced.

I hope to work with Abbott on some of the wording of additional rules.

First off do we all agree that the spirit and intent of the Rules for CAL is to provide a "largely level" playing field when it come down to unit selection EVEN for those new to the game so they are not unduely disadvantaged by more experienced players who REALLY know how to cherry pick forces? I thought that was the goal from the get go, AND of course to make those unit and force selections largely historical and balanced for all concerned.

Your rule suggstions and proposals are still welcome as far as I can tell.

-tom w

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the premise you are mentioning and it is a fair one. It does not cover all the needs of the experienced players, however, ref. your following post.

In effect, two sets of rules are needed. One set defines explicitly the parameters for a CAL game, and the other set contains some optional rules that are used subject to agreement by both players. A newcomer would then be advised to stick to the standard rules until (s)he accumulates enough experience to judge the effect of using optional rules.

This is pretty much what you have already, but I would personally like the optional rule set to be expanded. And the distinction could be clarified.

Btw, thanks for the good work and the well-considered replies

[Abbott]

In effect, two sets of rules are needed. One set defines explicitly the parameters for a CAL game, and the other set contains some optional rules that are used subject to agreement by both players. A newcomer would then be advised to stick to the standard rules until (s)he accumulates enough experience to judge the effect of using optional rules- Robert

--------------------

Exactly! The Suggestions/Optional Rules section is undergoing a refit over the next couple of weeks. All players are welcome to share their ideas abbott@tournamenthouse.com Currently there are discussions underway via e-mail. I will add players to the discussions as they notify me.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott:

In effect, two sets of rules are needed. One set defines explicitly the parameters for a CAL game, and the other set contains some optional rules that are used subject to agreement by both players. A newcomer would then be advised to stick to the standard rules until (s)he accumulates enough experience to judge the effect of using optional rules- Robert

--------------------

Exactly! The Suggestions/Optional Rules section is undergoing a refit over the next couple of weeks. All players are welcome to share their ideas abbott@tournamenthouse.com Currently there are discussions underway via e-mail. I will add players to the discussions as they notify me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds good

Firstly a definition of what exactly defines a CAL ladder game and then some other optional rules sounds great. I think those options should include the Mechanized force vs another Mech force and infantry vs infantry battles as well.

I think there is a growing consensus here of how this thing should ideally work.

The CAL ladder is underway and there are games being won and lost and registered every day now, so find an opponent and start PLAYING !!

-tom w

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[yobobo@TH]

Bumping